SINCE taking over the helm of the Home Office from David Blunkett, Charles Clarke has shown a refreshing willingness to be his own man - and not be afraid of changing direction where the need arises.

Such a need has been evident from the start to most right-thinking people in the case of house arrests for terror suspects - a deeply flawed policy which now looks set to be consigned to the political scrap heap.

Detention at home was one of the new options or "control orders" being considered as an alternative to Belmarsh to deal with suspects the government could not or would not - for lack of hard evidence or security reasons - put on trial.

However police and the security services have rightly pointed out that such homes (albeit under close supervision) could easily become recruiting centres for would-be terrorists.

Moreover it is arguable that the so-called war on terror is hardly worth fighting if the freedoms and rights being threatened disappear as a result.

The strategy of putting people behind bars without charge or trial on the basis of a political - as opposed to judicial - decision, is abhorrent regardless of the threat being posed to the nation. It is the very stuff of which dictatorships such as Saddam's were made.

Equally the idea that the suspects could, if they so wished, simply leave the country, would have been laughable had it not been so serious.

If there is compelling evidence to suggest that someone is a threat to the public then it is only right that they be remanded in custody, be made aware of the charges, and have that evidence tried.

Whatever difficulties this may present, we must not go down the other route to a Kafka-esque nightmare.

Mr Clarke, who unwittingly revealed the security service concerns when he was pictured with the briefing paper on public show after last Thursday's Cabinet meeting, seems wise to the threat we pose ourselves.

We are not opposed to phone taps where absolutely necessary or other forms of covert surveillance, and it does not seem necessary always to have to reveal how sensitive evidence was gathered or even to use traditional adversarial court procedures with the cases tried in public. If it is believed that the defence counsel is untrustworthy and leaking confidential material, then charge them too.

But what is clear is that justice and civil liberty can only be served by trying evidence. Nothing else will do.